Different types of yarn packages are required for supplying yarns such as bobbins, pirns, cones, cheeses and spools. However, all these packages have one thing in common. The yarn always occurs about one axis of rotation. As a consequence, these packages of yarn happen to be cylindrical/conical and hence their thickness and width are equal when seen axially. However, depending on the functional requirement of a given process, either small or big diameter packages of yarn with suitable height/length are used. For example, a pirn that is used as a weft source in the weaving process is required to be diametrically smaller than the cone/cheese.
Unlike in the conventional 2D weaving process wherein one horizontal weft is picked, in the 3D-weaving and uniaxial type of noobing processes, which have been discussed in detail according to the listed references, multiple horizontal and vertical wefts/binding yarns have to be inserted alternately through the warp/axial yarns. This is because the warp/axial yarns are disposed in rows and columns arrangement and every row and column of yarns requires a corresponding weft/binding yarn. As in these 3D textile-forming processes the use of multiple weft/binding yarn transporting carriers or shuttles is preferable, it becomes necessary to keep the height of each yarn carrier as low as possible to enable simultaneous traversal of as many of them as possible in the limited space that is available to keep things manageable, simple and compact.
Further, in these 3D textile-forming processes it is desirable to maintain the vertical and horizontal layers of warp/axial yarns as closely as possible. Large spacing between the warp/axial yarns is disadvantageous. For example, it causes generation of high tensions in warp/axial yarns, renders a device bulky and hence not space saving, and is not helpful in achieving dense and well-structured 3D textile. Also, a close spacing of warp/axial yarns is desirable to manage easily the simultaneous insertion of a large number of either vertical or horizontal wefts/binding yarns. However, the conventional cylindrical package like the pirn is diametrically too large to be used in the said 3D textile forming processes. A pirn with its carrier, namely the shuttle, becomes even a larger system and will be obviously not preferable. This is also applicable to the type of shuttles and their yarn packages used in narrow or band weaving. If relatively smaller diameter pirns and shuttles are used (to have a low-height) then the cylindrical package will carry lesser amount of yarn. A package with relatively lower amounts of yarn will exhaust quickly necessitating frequent replacement with newer yarn packages. Consequently, a process requiring frequent stoppages for replacing exhausted yarn package with a fresh one will apparently be inefficient. The other disadvantages with the use of conventional yarn packages like the pirn are:    It cannot let off and take-up the weft yarn by itself to maintain uniform tension.    A twist is inserted in every round of yarn that is withdrawn axially.    It is vulnerable to contamination and damage.
These disadvantages are common for most prior art textile manufacturing methods and machinery, and especially for yarn holders being used therein.
As insertion of multiple wefts/binding yarns are involved in the processes under consideration, it is desirable to traverse the multiple means for yarn insertion in a linear path and under positive control to manage them properly. This will help to keep the textile producing machine compact and simple with as few working parts as possible. However, for these processes the conventional shuttle, including the types used in narrow/band weaving, which has its tips arranged in a linear alignment, is not suitable. This is because their back and forth traversal will have to be done in a rectangular path, and not the same linear path, to lay yarn either above/below or right side/left side of a given warp/axial yarn layer. As a result, the use of such a shuttle would necessitate wider spacing between the warp/axial yarns and consequently a compact, simple and efficient machine cannot be had. Also, it will be nearly impossible to control the multiple shuttles of a given direction if picked simultaneously between the boxes. Accordingly, it will be desirable to traverse the means for yarn insertion under positive control and in a linear path and yet be able to lay the yarn either above/below or right side/left side of a warp/axial yarn layer for rendering the machine simple and the process efficient.
Another major problem confronting the 3D-weaving and uniaxial type noobing processes is that of beating-up the multiple wefts/binding yarns that are alternately laid vertically and horizontally through the columns and rows of the warp/axial yarns. The beating-up reed and operation employed in the conventional 2D weaving process, including the types used in narrow/band weaving, cannot be applied to the 3D-weaving/uniaxial noobing processes. This is because the conventional beating-up reed is effective in positioning one ‘horizontal’ weft as its dents occur in a perpendicular orientation to the weft and a line contact is sufficient between the dents of the reed and the weft during the beating-up operation. The conventional reed with vertically oriented dents will not be effective in beating-up the wefts/binding yarns that also occur in the vertical direction as these yarns will tend to slip through the space between the dents.
Further, because in the 3D-weaving and uniaxial noobing processes multiple wefts/binding yarns are inserted alternately in the vertical and horizontal directions, these yarns are required to be beaten-up simultaneously in their respective directions to render the process efficient. Unlike in the conventional 2D-weaving process wherein only one weft is laid in the horizontal direction and the reed can make a line contact to beat it, in the 3D-weaving/uniaxial noobing processes the beating-up dents would be required to make a planar or areal contact as there will be more than one weft/binding yarns in a given direction to be beaten-up at the same time.
It follows now that the main reasons why the conventional shuttle, including the type used in narrow/band weaving, is unsuitable for use in the context of the 3D textile-forming processes are:    It is difficult to control the shuttle, in order to lay the yarn in two different paths relative to a layer of warp/axial yarns during its linear back and forth traversal, as its tips occur in a linear arrangement.    It is not traversed under positive control as it is thrown and there is no control over it during its flight from one box to the opposite.    It cannot be employed in the beating-up operation.